Sunday, November 13, 2016

... or rather remarks on vaticancatholic's video on KJV-Onlyism

Video commented on:
Is the King James Bible Infallible?

Just for the record, my online English Bible is DRB. And if I get hold of Father Ronald Knox, I'll take a look at that too, it has pre-Vatican II imprimatur, I think.

But SOME guys associate me with KJ-onlyists because I am generally a Biblical inerrantist - especially YEC and Geocentric.

My Biblical chronology is also LXX via St Jerome and Roman Martyrology for 25 of December. Christ born 5199 anno Mundi.

As a revert from Orthodox to Catholic, I note that some Catholic arguments for Papacy have similar problems.

  • a) Peter's office must have remained THEREFORE it is the Roman Pontiff who uniquely holds it;
  • b) Peter episcopated effectively in Jerusalem, Antioch and Rome, THEREFORE it is the Roman Pontiff who is unique successor of St Peter.

Note, for Jerusalem, St James the Brother of God counts as first bishop bearing that title, but before he was such, Peter and the Apostles were ruling which means (if St Peter was superior to them) that St Peter was in fact episcopating from Pentecost Day or even before up to when he left Jerusalem for Antioch.

For point one, or a), I have reverted as judging by the fruits, unable to dissolve the conundrum on my own, just theologically, for the second point or b) above, well, he died in Rome, so Rome was the final of the three places where he episcopated.

KJV-onlyists would similarily argue that of the three English authorised versions, The Great Bible and The Bishops' Bible were superseded with finality by King James' Bible.

They even would have had an argument, if English had historically been a very large language early on - as it is, it was small up to American colonies, and still very small up to 18th Century, when it was heading the apostasy in certain ways. And now with internet, we have no trouble getting DRB.

KJV-Onlyists would hardly argue that King James was inspired.

They would argue that he was providential, as providential an instrument as Orthodox argue for Emperor Constantine (here a Baptist would be really illogical for another reason : this "Protestant Constantine" was in fact burning Baptists on the stake according to the Parliamentary law De comburendis hereticis, 1401, originally directed at Lollards, misapplied via the bishop of Beauvais to St Joan of Arc).

ASCII Code for King James:


777777 = 42*10
668 = 20*10

5 3 08 01 04 05 07 09 03
5 8 16 17 21 26 33 42 45

620+45 = 665.

HOLYBIBLE (but not Heilige Bibel, heliga Bibeln, Sagrada Scriptura etc) has 666.

Obviously some are making Bible reading a substitute for the Eucharist and are therefore making, precisely among English speaking Bible readers, the Bible a kind of idol.

That much you are right in.

[Where they spoke of non-copyrighted KJV as contradicted by longstanding Royal Privilege for certain printers in England:]

And in Sweden the printing press for the first Lutheran tracts was stolen by royal confiscation from the Carthusians. They had printed a tract about the Holy Rosary first.

Obviously, Reformation monarchs were not into the free press.

One Orthodox argument which once appealed to me was "Papism was the first Protestantism" - I don't believe that any longer, but it takes some detailed knowledge of Russian and other heresies to know Orthodox countries were not immune to heresies.

Protestants have at least not been skoptsy.

Speaking of King James : he was very inconsistent about the Blessed Sacrament.

On the one hand, he forbade teaching transsubstantiation. On the other hand, he forbade not kneeling while receiving.

Could one consider his attitude as responding to the description some Protestants give of Catholicism?

31:40 or before.
A printer can as easily make a mistake as someone copying by hand. See the divergences between first two editions of 1611 - or the near-Bible work we are discussing. These versions were printed.

I'd say the original reading of each autograph is preserved, meaning or even word for word in at least ONE version extant today, not necessarily the same one. I place, for instance, LXX over Vulgate in age of Adam at birth of Seth, since that seems warranted by Roman Martyrology.

God promised to preserve His words - since these include the words He inspired hagiographers to write, the original meaning of each passage must have a correctly rendered version at least somewhere.

I wonder if there aren't canonists who are trying to explain with some sweat that Trent didn't define all the correct readings to be preserved in the Vulgate.

Final remark:
To return to the locus Apocalypse 16:5, it would seem the text of Beza would have been plausible if St John had been a Greek, having past, present and future as distinct tenses, while he was in fact a Hebrew, having past and non-past as distinct tenses and rendering non-past more generally as present than as future.

No comments: